The PR Thread

[[Finrod]]

Having raised the question in the Lib Dem thread on what - apart from PR - Lib Dem supporters like about their party's platform (as the PR debate would obviously hijack the thread), it seemed only right and proper to begin a thread devoted solely to the discussion of Proportional Representation. Other Voting reforms may well be discussed here, as well as yoghurt and tea.

Cricket is always On Topic, of course.

And the weather. Goes without saying, that.

So - Proportional Representation. STV, AV, AMS, Open List, Closed List, SV. Whatever you like. Pro's, con's, irrelevancies.  

[Invictus_88]

Apologies, that latter option was simply too much of a temptation! Especially given our current dreadful lot in government.

Our current system is the one I would prefer, even if it does bring us New Labour.

The problem is not to be solved in the electoral system, but in good education and a competent reinforcement of the House of Lords.  

[[Finrod]]

You know, old bean, I haven't been here for long, but that vote of yours was not entirely unexpected smile

I also support the current sysem, for a variety of reasons - but I'll keep my cards close to my chest until an argument develops.  

[unchienanglais]

There doesn't appear to be much of an argument developing, so (as you were good enough to nominate me - thank you) I feel I should attempt to start one, even though I can't claim to be insanely passionate about the issue.

The first-past-the-post system, as it operates in Britain, doesn't seem to be democratic. The current government has a perfectly effective majority on the basis of having won 35% of the poll at the last General Election. When you take into account the fact that a substantial minority of people didn't vote at all, the situation appears extremely diffcult to justify. What degree of legitimacy does a government in a democratic country possess when it is elected by less than a third of the population?

There is a huge amount of cynicism towards politics and politicians in Britain, which I think is ultimately very unhealthy, if largely justified. The turnout in the last two General Elections has been around the 60% mark. Certain sections of the population seem more compelled to participate in voting to decide who wins "Big Brother" than to elect a government. Isn't that partly caused by the current system? Feeling that your vote doesn't count can only contribute to a sense of disenchantment.  

[Sir_Catherine]

Invictus_88

Apologies, that latter option was simply too much of a temptation! Especially given our current dreadful lot in government.

I would expect nothing less from you. wink  

[[Finrod]]

Apologies for the prolonged absence; I've been up to my eyeballs in dissertation (had a horrible incident just over a week ago when I learned that the final deadline was not the 25th of July but the 12th!
Nearly done the first draft (just "Conclusions" left to write (plus "Glossary and "Acknowledgements"), so I'll be back to this soon.  

[Heterodyne]

*Brain clanks back to Year 12 Politics*

Well, I've cast my vote for STV, but for me it's between STV and AMV... I'm arguing from a personal position of holding liberal democratic (ideological, not party based) sensibilities particularly dear, so for me, the ideal electoral system is accurately representative of the wishes of as many people as possible, and therefore:

~ Gives votes equal value - the inequality of individual votes in different parts of the UK is a stark fact - the fact that wasted votes cast in safe seats (Suffolk is mainly irrevocably Tory) have no impact is shameful. At a UK level, the way the constituency boundaries are delimitated clearly favour Labour, one reason why they're been so reticent about electoral reform for Westminster. Every vote, or as many votes as possible should make an impact. AMV is strongest here in terms of being representative overall, while STV falls down.

(Dammit, I can't do a bulleted list with only one point... I shall add more in the evening, when my brain has turned on, and I'm not distracting myself watching Utena on Youtube)

And follows couple of criteria which are pragmatic rather than ideal:

~ Still provides workable majorities - This is a practical consideration which conflicts with the desire for a government of a highly representative and therefore legitimate nature. Sometimes the governments created by PR systems can only functions on extensive coalitions, which can damage the dynamism and stability of governing and policy formation (Yes, I used the word 'dynamism' to describe policy formation. sweatdrop ) Italy's electoral system is largely responsible for its governmental insecurity...

~ Accepts the politics of personality - I'm not so convinced by Closed List, because I feel it's important to attatch a face to your vote - politics is not cold and impersonal, and it does matter which individuals are in charge. With a PM other than Blair, we might well not have gone to war

~ Is easy to understand - simply because voting cannot be exclusive (I've shrieked in horror in the past at suggestions that 'more intelligent' people should have 'more votes'... but let's not go there...) Yes, more people are interested in Big Brother than politics, and some people accidentally spoil their ballot even with 'Just put the X in the box', but we can't have a system which is exclusive. There isn't an aptitude test to be a British citizen, so the voting system can't act as one instead.

I've wondered about the effect that making voting legally obligatory would have when combined with these different systems... but the whole legally obligatory voting thing is yet another separate minefield.

I really feel that FPTP can't remain in place with the tenuous legitimacy it provides... the virtue of PR systems is in the name - it's proportional, and therefore desirable in a (supposed) liberal democracy. STV would be the least disruptive when compared to the present situation, simply ironing out the rather crass simplicity of FPTP, while AMV would be an impressive leap in terms of overall representation, if having problems of its own...

And after writing all that, I think I've recovered from the sheer horror of the last option in the poll. domokun The day we have absolute monarchy in this country again is the day I start swimming for France. Oh dammit, Sarkozy's there. Make that the day I start building my moon rocket...

Argue with me, people! Although...

Quote:

I can't claim to be insanely passionate about the issue

It is a bit of a dry subject... ^_^ Candidly disagree with my stance? Register disapproval concerning the logical formulation of one of my points? xd  

[A Lost Iguana]

It's all about Condorcet methods.  

[Nebelstern]

I notice the poll doesn't have Alternative Vote +, recommended by Lib Dem Lord Jenkins as the best voting method for the UK. I trust that judgement so I'm gonna plump for that.  

[[Finrod]]

Firstly, apologies for the very long silence on the subject - my dissertation was due in July, and I had to spend a lot of time working on it. Then a house move (with loss of broadband - the horror!) and getting used to my new post at work.

Multiple posts coming up to make discussion easier (I've learned from experience over in ED). I've got "Why don't I like PR/what is democracy?"; "The value of my vote/What is fair?" and "My preferred voting system". Here goes:

Why don't I like PR/what is democracy?

My disagreement with PR is that it does, in my mind, move rather too much power away from the electorate and into the hands of the politicians. Essentially, my argument is the same as that of the pro-PR advocates but against PR: it is undemocratic.

What is democracy? If it is anything, it is the power of the people to peacefully overthrow the Government. And to influence the replacement.

With a completely proportional system, unless one party gets over 50% of the vote (vanishingly rare), the incumbent government has the option of cobbling together a coalition to remain in power. Chosen by the politicians. With policies chosen by the politicians.

It's pretty much inarguable that the country wanted rid of the Tories in 1997. Under a PR system, that might not have happened. If John Major had been able to offer the Lib Dems something that they wanted as much as they want PR today, they might have chosen to keep him in power (some lesser parties might have been necessary as well - but Blair's Labour party only got 44%, leaving quite a lot of room for manouvre). They probably still wouldn't have done so - but it would have been up to Ashdown and Major - not us.

Vanishingly unlikely?

1976. Federal republic of Germany. The FDP (third party - similar to the Lib Dems in the UK but with about half the vote share) were in coalition with the SPD (left wing - New Labour-types) prior to the election, but had shown willingness to go with either major party.

The SPD lost vote share from 45.8% at the 1972 election to 42.6%.
The CDU/CSU (centre right) rose from 44.8% (1972) to 48.6%. Fairly decisive, yes?
The FDP dropped from 8.4% to 7.9%

The SPD dropped from a meagre 1% lead to a 6.4% deficit, with the CDU/CSU getting to spitting distance of an absolute majority. The FDP lost a pretty fair chunk of their vote share, leading one to think that their voters weren't overjoyed with their coalition with the SPD.

What was the government chosen?

No change. Sorry, electors. The politicians spoke, and the SPD and FDP continued in merry coalition. There would be no change of government until the FDP decided that there should be in 1982. No election necessary (in fact, the 1980 election had decreased support for the CDU/CSU down to 44.5% - but the choice of the electors didn't seem that critical - it all goes on in the background while the parties chose who would govern).

But that was then. What about now?
Well ... in their last election, it was pretty well defined. You had the ruling coalition, known as the "left fraction", of the SPD and the Greens, versus the "right fraction" of the CDU/CSU and FDP. The "Linkspartei" (Left Party), essentially the old communists, were effectively a third "fraction.

CDU/CSU: 40.8%
FDP: 4.7%

SPD: 38.4%
Greens: 5.4%

Linkspartei: 8.0%

Did the voters get what they were after? Well, the ruling coalition had dropped 3.7% between them and were overtaken by the opposition coalition. In an FPTP system, there would have been 150 CDU/CSU seats, 0 FPD seats (total 150 right fraction); 145 SPD seats, 1 Green seat (146 seats for the left fraction) and 3 seats for the Linkspartei. Result would have been an incredibly narrow right fraction majority, of 1 seat.

What they got, due to the AMS element, was a hung parliament in which the politicians decided that the CDU/CSU and SPD would govern. Sorry, FDP - you're out in the cold. Never mind that many of your voters lent their votes to the CDU/CSU on the list (and vice versa), the politicians have chosen.

Same with the Greens. Tough.
They got a government that no-one was after at the start of the election, and said that it was the choice of the electorate. The SPD, despite being "sacked", got to stay in government.

So.
Back here, with our flawed FPTP system, over the same timescale.

1979 - Old Labour kicked out of office. Definite choice of the electorate there, even though Maggie Thatcher couldn't win over 50%. The Liberals had been punished for propping up the failing Labour Government in the Lib-Lab pact. Callaghan had seen that there was "a tide running for Mrs Thatcher" and that the electorate was going to sack him.

1983. No change. Under a PR system, theoretically, the Alliance and Labour could have taken over. Many less-informed commentators bewail the lack of PR here and point out that Maggie won against "A divided opposition". Yes. She did. And if the Liberals and SDP hadn't existed, and it had been a straight fight between Tories and Labour, who would have won?

Tories by a landslide. And that's not opinion, that's fact. The British Electroal Survey were operating then, and they found out the second preferences of all voters. If you reallocate the Alliance second preferences (broken down by home nation) and normalise for the reduction in voters (a small percentage would not have voted if the Alliance hadn't existed), Maggie would have won by 57.9% to 39.5% (other (smaller) parties making up the remainder.

Similar tale in 1987.
1992 - the BES show that John Major enjoyed the support of 51.9% of the electorate (looking at Tories and Lib Dem second preferences only). So a PR system, which would probably have given a Labour/Lib Dem government, would not have reflected the will of the electorate.

1997 - Blair was wanted by 56.7% of the electorate (looking at Labour and Lib Dems second preferences). So if there had been a PR system and the party leaders had the option of keeping the Tories in power, it would really not have been the will of the people.

Last election. 2005. Labour holds on with the smallest plurality in living memory. Many commentators call for PR.
But in the YouGov polls, a supplementary "forced choice" question was given. If you had to choose between PM Blair and PM Howard, what would you choose?

Blair 52%. Howard 35%.

But let's run a "what if" scenario. What if we'd had PR. If we'd had about 210 Tories and 140 Lib Dems.

Michael Howard walks over to Kennedy's office on 6th May 2005. He's got an offer for him.
Kennedy to be Foreign Secretary. Another 3 seats in Cabinet for Lib Dem MPs. Plus whichever is the single most wanted Lib Dem policy (well, PR, I guess, but we've got that already) to be given to national referendum. He might have gone for it.

But it wouldn't have been the will of the electorate.

So no, I don't think that PR is "more democratic".  

[[Finrod]]

The value of my vote/What is fair?

The value of "my vote"

This is often the core of many calls for PR. People will show graphs about various constituencies, show the winners, losers, and third place, and then show that their vote (usually for the third-placed party in that constituency) couldn't affect the outcome. So what? It's incredibly rare for any one vote to affect the outcome - it's not supposed to. It's supposed to be the overall shape of the votes of the people - not "my vote". In an analogy with science - in a gas, the actions of one molecule are all but irrelevant - it's the movement of the whole body of molecules that counts ("make my molecule count").

"My vote" has never counted. I voted for losing candidates in 1992 and 2001. For a winning candidate in 2005 (I didn't vote in 1997). The side I voted for lost overall in 1992 and 2005 but won in 2001. If I hadn't voted, there would have been no change. Even in any conceivable system (apart from one, which I'll detail below). But "my vote" isn't supposed to be the crucial one. It's the votes of all of us, as a body. So pointing to a constituency result and saying "there was no way that my vote could have counted" is absurd (not that I'm accusing anyone here of that; it's just that it's an argument I see too often); it was counted but didn't change things on its own. It shouldn't have been the crucial vote, anyway.

The "make my vote count" people often say that their votes don't count if they vote for one of the losers in a safe seat. Well, they wouldn't have counted if they'd voted for the winner, either (apart from the smug sense of satisfaction of your candidate winning) - take away your vote and there's no change.

The value of a system should never be "did my vote make the difference?" - because it never should - but "does this reflect the will of the people in potentially sacking the government?". Well, in all elections since at least 1979, it has in this country (see my last post).

So what voting system should we have. See next post for my take on it.


(P.S. - what's the "fair" voting system? Simple - we're voting for an Executive, right. Say, 35.19% of the UK wanted a Labour Executive - we should then have 35.19% of a full Labour Executive - not one diluted as per the politician's choices. We should have 32.36% of a Tory Executive, and 22.05% of a Lib Dem executive.

The fair way is: A full term is 5 years. Labour would take power for 1 year, 9 months and 3 days (from the election until February 8th 2007). Then, the Tories are the government for 1 year, 7 months and 12 days (until September 20th 200 cool . They hand over to the Lib Dems for a 1 year, 1 month and 7 day term (taking us to October 27th 2009). Then UKIP take over for 1month and 11 days (Until December 8th 2009) and hand over to the SNP for 28 days (until January 5th 2010). The Greens then have 19 days, before the DUP get 16 days, then the BNP get 13 days of power. Then it's Plaid Cymru, Sinn Feinn, the Ulster Unionists (now that's a weird transition), and so on, until the election rolls around in May 2010. That's fair, but absurd)  

[[Finrod]]

My preferred voting system

Right, what about the types of system on offer.

AMS. FPTP hammered crudely into a proportional outcome. Two classes of MPs, only "advantage" over FPTP being proportionality. And I've already covered (in great depth) my rejection that proportionality is the acme of democracy. Plus, this is the system used in Germ,any, and you know by now that I'm not overly impressed. So, no.

Closed List. Absolutely not. Not only giving power to the politicians through the PR aspect, but guaranteeing that the party hacks won't lose their seats.

Open List. Hmph. Just PR. Not as bad as closed list, but the only plus is proportionality. See above.

STV. My least disliked "PR" system - possibly because it isn't pure PR. But the down side is the "donkey vote" Defined as follows:

Say you've got a 5-member STV constituency. All three parties submit 5 candidates each. UKIP have 3; the BNP have 3, the Greens have 2, RESPECT have 2, the Monster Raving Loony Party have 1, the English Democrats have 1, and there are 4 independents. Fair enough?

That's 31 candidates. You get to rank all of them. Now, will your thoughts over who gets 26th place and who gets 27th really be well considered? Or will you just get pretty random towards the end?
The thing is, it's very possible that your 26th vote will be useful. And it will "weigh" just as much as someone elses 1st vote. And if they voted for your candidate number 27, and your 26th choice won the last place by 1 vote, is that fair? You didn't really care, but this other voter did.

OK, that's an exaggeration, but down at numbers 9 and 10 it could well be more than valid.
My personal take is that actually, the Eurovision Song contest have this bit right. So here goes:

You get 3-member STV-type constituencies (minimising PR but retaining more choice than FPTP). Any party that wants to stand has to provide 4 candidates (giving you a choice within each party - again, increasing choice). Independents can go solo if they want.

You then vote as per Eurovision: 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 vote. That's a total of 11 candidates; you can stop where you like (so you can go just 12, 10, 9 if you want).

Every vote is counted. The top three win.
That gives you the Commons. The Executive. Not proportional, but with more choice. However, I am actually amenable to the idea that the overall flavour of popular opinion should be involved (the problem is that we elect both Executive and Legislature in one vote). My nod to PR is that the Lords should be elected. By straight PR. But with a slight twist.

The Lords sit for 7 years. When they are dissolved, a list of parties - those present in either the Lords or Commons prior to the dissolution of the Lords, plus "None of the Above/Crossbench" (So at the moment, the list would be "Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid, Respect, UUP, DUP, SDLP, Sinn Feinn, IKHH, Green, UKIP, None of the above/Crossbench".
The last option is to be held within limits of no less than 15% of the Lords; no more than 30%. The rest of the seats are allocated directly proportionately.
The Parties can then fill them for a 7 year term (one term limit per Lord) from their peers - either hereditary or nominated (that is - if you inherit a peerage or are appointed to a peerage, you do not automatically sit in the House of Lords, but you become one of your Party's eligible appointees for a single term). The Crossbench get their quota of seats, but fill them on a "first come, first served" basis every day (thus enabling the neutral experts to be available whenever needed).

The Lords will be inevitably hung - but it always is anyway. Less susceptible to pressure from the Whips (what can they do after they've appointed you - offer you a peerage? Deselect you? Hmm ...)

And that's the Finrod guide to my ideal voting system. Sorry for the long essays.  

[A Lost Iguana]

I'm not sure how to fix voting in this country. Should the overall popular vote split be identical in every single constituency — assume that the distribution of voter preferences is entirely uniform — then one party would have every seat in Commons. We rely on random clumping of voter preferences in order to get a final house that resembles the overall vote share.

Finrod, you should not have to rank all candidates in STV, you only have to rank those you want to vote for. There is nothing stopping an implementation where vote that cannot be transferred are just dumped. Strawmans are bad for you.

I'd like to see a staggered election process for Lords similar to the way the US Senate only has 1/3 of its seat up for election each time around. That would stop short-term "reaction" voting from changing the entire political landscape overnight. If there is a radical change that lasts then it will gradually swing Lords toward it.  

[[Finrod]]

A Lost Iguana

Finrod, you should not have to rank all candidates in STV, you only have to rank those you want to vote for. There is nothing stopping an implementation where vote that cannot be transferred are just dumped. Strawmans are bad for you.

Exhausted ballots are usually seen as a bad thing by STV proponents (as that voters desires are dumped despite his/her willingness to go and vote) - this is why some STV systems actually require a full ranking - which, of course, can lead to Donkey voting. So not really a strawman, in my opinion. Nevertheless, my point is that I dislike a system where my xth choice (where x is a large number) "weighs as much as your 1st choice - it doesn't seem very fair to me. That's why my (half-baked) system has the weight of the vote diminishing as it goes along.

However, out of all the alternatives, it is my second preference. If we ever do change, please God let it be STV rather than Closed Party List ...
Note that I never raised any of the issues found in the Wikipedia article on STV issues - mainly because I deisagree that they are issues. Complexity? (the main one that gets bandied about) Pfui - you'd be stunned at how many people don't understand the current system (I once had a long argument with my mother, who maintained that in a General Election, your vote went straight to determining the Government; you only voted for your local MP in a by-election. I've heard that exact same argument from at least three other people!). You don't need to know all the mechanics - just to put your order of preference on a ballot paper.

A Lost Iguana

I'd like to see a staggered election process for Lords similar to the way the US Senate only has 1/3 of its seat up for election each time around. That would stop short-term "reaction" voting from changing the entire political landscape overnight. If there is a radical change that lasts then it will gradually swing Lords toward it.

I agree. There's a UK precedent as well - most councils are elected in thirds.  

[A Lost Iguana]

[Finrod]

Exhausted ballots are usually seen as a bad thing by STV proponents (as that voters desires are dumped despite his/her willingness to go and vote) - this is why some STV systems actually require a full ranking - which, of course, can lead to Donkey voting. So not really a strawman, in my opinion.

Eh. Should any one vote get to the situation where it is to be transferred to another candidate but the voter has not given any, then that voter's preferences should have already satisfied the conditions required for transferral: in other words, getting the seat. I think the STV proponents arguing for a complete list are getting something I am missing. Though, I apologise, for the strawman accusation [seeing as you are not misrepresenting STV, some people really are that silly].

[Finrod]

Nevertheless, my point is that I dislike a system where my xth choice (where x is a large number) "weighs as much as your 1st choice - it doesn't seem very fair to me. That's why my (half-baked) system has the weight of the vote diminishing as it goes along.

I agree that considering someone's nth preference as equal to another's mth [n > m] is not really "fair". A system of weighs would solve this but that opening up a huge can of worms about how to go about it. The means by which you weight the candidates will have an impact on the overall outcome [in fact, I'm sure you could plug the set of weights into a function minimiser and see if you can "cook" a system that reproduces a result you prefer; it is a similar argument I make about all sports "indexes" where they never reveal their method for assessing which actions are weighted and how sensitive the outcome is to the choice of weights].

[Finrod]

However, out of all the alternatives, it is my second preference. If we ever do change, please God let it be STV rather than Closed Party List ...
Note that I never raised any of the issues found in the Wikipedia article on STV issues - mainly because I deisagree that they are issues. Complexity? (the main one that gets bandied about) Pfui - you'd be stunned at how many people don't understand the current system (I once had a long argument with my mother, who maintained that in a General Election, your vote went straight to determining the Government; you only voted for your local MP in a by-election. I've heard that exact same argument from at least three other people!). You don't need to know all the mechanics - just to put your order of preference on a ballot paper.

I'm with you there, it's really not that hard to rank people in order of preference.

With that in mind, I'd like to see a Condorcet method used to elect MPs but I do not think it would be worth the change. For one, people will complain endlessly about how incomprehensible it is [not an issue as discussed above] but the real problem is that it still leaves you with one winner from a voting district, and back to FPTP as you fill Commons.

A gripe of mine is that, as I outlined earlier, the overall share of the vote is only reflected in the share of Commons power by the arbitrary distribution of voters and their voting habits. I believe this to be directly related to how we elect local representatives, and it is the number of local representatives that affect the final balance of power and not the voting share required to elect them. A MP elected with 90% of the local vote counts the same as a MP elected with a 35%-33%-32% split.

I cannot think of any way to fix that problem — if others agree that it is a weakness of the system — without moving to a PR based system. The problem there is that we would then have to vote for a central party and not for local representatives as we do now, no? That or the "one constituency, one MP" would need to be amended to allow a region to send forward a number of MPs to Commons, with the balance set by the proportion of votes for the candidates standing.

A Lost Iguana

I agree. There's a UK precedent as well - most councils are elected in thirds.

This is a change I would really like to see in Lords, as well as being entirely elected.